Share your CPUZ Benchmarks!

[NSX05]

@dylricho : I see your graph hasn't been updated with threadripper?

Yeah, sorry about that. I've been in and out of hospital three times since my last post (due to Marfan's syndrome/pneumothorax).

The 1.81 graphs have been updated. I've also made graphs for 1.82 and 1.83.

CPU-Z v1.7.8.x = Single | Multi
CPU-Z v1.7.9.x = Single | Multi
CPU-Z v1.8.0.x = Single | Multi
CPU-Z v1.8.1.x = Single | Multi
CPU-Z v1.8.2.x = Single | Multi
CPU-Z v1.8.3.x = Single | Multi

Xeon X3440, ASUS P7P55D, 4 x 2Gb Samsung DDR3-1333



https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/x3440-png.95850/

Nehalem is reliant on instruction throughput; Piledriver is reliant on frequency.

https://snag.gy/hgCUNb.jpg
Fx8150 at 3.7 GHz and dual 1600MHz ddr3.

Now I'm sure this is 8 cores since 4 cores can't scale with 6.5x speedup multiplier. I sold my HD7870 a while ago but it was tens of times faster than this CPU.

For those who are under depression.

Yup, it has eight integer units. That's what AMD classifies as cores, which isn't inaccurate since FPUs were not always on-chip.

Here is a good laugh! OMG what a PATHETIC POS! This has GOT to be the WORST SO CALLED UPGRADE I EVER DONE! Never BUY AMD! WHAT A SORRY POS PLATFORM!
Utterly Sorry and Pathetic! Total waste of time and money!

The result looks fine to me. What's wrong with it?

 

[trickson]

you name it. poor weak not good.
look fine? a 6 year old i5 i7 and i3 smoke mine so yeah this CPU sucks!

 

[NSX05]

you name it. poor weak not good.
look fine? a 6 year old i5 i7 and i3 smoke mine so yeah this CPU sucks!

It's a quad-core, quad-thread processor that competes with the Core i3 segment. What were you expecting?

 

[trickson]

It's a quad-core, quad-thread processor that competes with the Core i3 segment. What were you expecting?

Not much from AMD to be sure. The only way this CPU could get any faster is if it dies and comes back as a slug!

 

[NSX05]

Not much from AMD to be sure. The only way this CPU could get any faster is if it dies and comes back as a slug!

I think the problem here lies less with AMD, but with yourself for not choosing the correct processor for your needs. Please don't be spreading propaganda due to your own negligence.

a 6 year old i5 i7 and i3 smoke mine so yeah this CPU sucks!

In much the same way that Core2 Quads were faster than the first Core i3s on the market. Performance doesn't always improve. It merely shifts down the stack. Years ago, Core i9 performance was restricted to Xeons. Now that the stack has shifted, it has reached consumers.

 

[trickson]

I think the problem here lies less with AMD, but with yourself for not choosing the correct processor for your needs. Please don't be spreading propaganda due to your own negligence.

First off the hype and all the "good" stuff said about the AMD Ryzen ON TPU and other sites is the reason I went with the system! Do not precieve to think I went into this ignorant at all! I was told and by all the scores I seen that this CPU was better than a core i7 this thig can't even begin to compete with ANY Intel's Quad cores! I use Quad cores ONLY for Gaming. It is pointless to use anything with more cores.
I am in NO way seeing any of the speeds that I was told I would see! It is just not there! I have run the tests I have OC this to the MAX! The ONLY thing left is to max out the RAM modules with the MAX number and speed see if that will boost this CPU.

 

[NSX05]

First off the hype and all the "good" stuff said about the AMD Ryzen ON TPU and other sites is the reason I went with the system! Do not precieve to think I went into this ignorant at all!

The only things that let Ryzen down, are the frequency wall, and the insane amount of voltage required to reach that wall. Both of these flaws are the result of the process used, and are therefore fixable.

I was told and by all the scores I seen that this CPU was better than a core i7 this thig can't even begin to compete with ANY Intel's Quad cores! I use Quad cores ONLY for Gaming. It is pointless to use anything with more cores.
I am in NO way seeing any of the speeds that I was told I would see! It is just not there! I have run the tests I have OC this to the MAX! The ONLY thing left is to max out the RAM modules with the MAX number and speed see if that will boost this CPU.

Comparable to an i7? What? What would make you think that the lowest tier option from AMD would equate to the highest tier option by Intel? That should have been an alarm bell right there.

Ryzen 3 == Core i3-6000 pricing; Core i5-6000 performance
Ryzen 5 == Core i5-6000 pricing; Core i7-6000 performance
Ryzen 7 == Core i7-6000 pricing; Core i7-6000 XE performance

That's how AMD stacked it from the beginning.

Also, don't rely on CPU-Z to depict accurate performance for any processor. It's more a novelty than anything.

 

[trickson]

The only things that let Ryzen down, are the frequency wall, and the insane amount of voltage required to reach that wall. Both of these flaws are the result of the process used, and are therefore fixable.




Comparable to an i7? What? What would make you think that the lowest tier option from AMD would equate to the highest tier option by Intel? That should have been an alarm bell right there.

Ryzen 3 == Core i3-6000 pricing; Core i5-6000 performance
Ryzen 5 == Core i5-6000 pricing; Core i7-6000 performance
Ryzen 7 == Core i7-6000 pricing; Core i7-6000 XE performance

That's how AMD stacked it from the beginning.

Also, don't rely on CPU-Z to depict accurate performance for any processor. It's more a novelty than anything.

NO but surely it would compete with a 6 year OLD LINE FOR SHITZ SAKE! And NO matter HOW you stack it the AMD LINE ALL of them so far are sub-par performance platforms. Far from the Intel offerings even there GPU line is a getto budget build! Never buying AMD again! I have proff and you can't see it? I have run the tests even in Cinabench My system gets walked on by a 6 year old LINE! WTF! 6 YEAR OLD CPU blows mine away? I am at a loose for emotion support I got kicked in the NUTS! And now my gut actually hurts! I can actually feel buyers remorse and I now feel the pain others have buying crap tech.

 

[Enterprise24]

 

[trickson]

SWEET! BLOWS MY NEW Ryzen 3 1300x AWAY! Awesome!

 

[NSX05]

Far from the Intel offerings even there GPU line is a getto budget build!

Okay. Shitposting confirmed. Again, don't blame the company when the information was out for a while before they were even released. You're just trying to find an excuse for your poor purchasing decision.

 

[diatribe]

I think trickson hasn't taken the new scoring into consideration. His Ryzen scores very well. It will blow away his old CPU, he just needs to run both on the same version of the benchmark to show it.

My Intel i7-7700 (work pc) @ stock ($310)
Single-Core: 477.5
Multi-Core: 2,404.6 - 8 Threads

His AMD Ryzen 3 1300X ($130) - $180 less than the i7-7700
Single-Core: 457 (-20.5 points) - Pretty close to a top-end i7
Multi-Core: 1,780 - 4 Threads

It's obviously not going to compete with an 8-threaded CPU in multi-core benchmarks, but single core is extremely close.

What exactly is your complaint? If anything, I feel like you got a blazing fast single-threaded machine on the cheap. If you wanted more threads then you should have purchased a Ryzen 5 or 7 CPU.

 

[NSX05]

I think trickson hasn't taken the new scoring into consideration. His Ryzen scores very well. It will blow away his old CPU, he just needs to run both on the same version of the benchmark to show it.

Well, there have been many numbers posted since version 1.79 was released. All up to now use the same version of the benchmark, which by the way is only representative of sequential superscalar SSE2 instructions. That's why it doesn't really carry much weight behind its figures.

But even so, Cinebench also shows similar results. The 1300X is 20% behind a 6600K, which wasn't its target from the beginning. But with that in mind, a 6600K/7600K currently sells for over twice the amount of the 1300X. Sure the clocks are nice, but a 100% price increase for 20% performance improvement wouldn't sit well with most people. As for its primary competition, such as the i3-6320 and i3-7350K, it's 30% and 21% faster, respectively. Again, both are more expensive.

I don't know, it just feels like whenever it's an AMD processor, people don't really take into consideration the true competition to the chip. It's the FX-8350 situation all over again, albeit the results are actually closer now than they have ever been since 2011.

Your results were added, by the way.

 

[phanbuey]

Well, there have been many numbers posted since version 1.79 was released. All up to now use the same version of the benchmark, which by the way is only representative of sequential superscalar SSE2 instructions. That's why it doesn't really carry much weight behind its figures.

But even so, Cinebench also shows similar results. The 1300X is 20% behind a 6600K, which wasn't its target from the beginning. But with that in mind, a 6600K/7600K currently sells for over twice the amount of the 1300X. Sure the clocks are nice, but a 100% price increase for 20% performance improvement wouldn't sit well with most people. As for its primary competition, such as the i3-6320 and i3-7350K, it's 30% and 21% faster, respectively. Again, both are more expensive.

I don't know, it just feels like whenever it's an AMD processor, people don't really take into consideration the true competition to the chip. It's the FX-8350 situation all over again, albeit the results are actually closer now than they have ever been since 2011.

Your results were added, by the way.

yeah but the 8100 is the real competition, and that is sitting at $120... it's not going to kill it in cinebench, but with one stick of ram and a 1050ti, it will spank the r3 systems in real world.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1499-intel-core-i3-8100-i3-8350K/page4.html

 

[wally_1973]

New and easy bios on asrock ab350m pro, an improvement. Cool & quiet enabled.

 

[purecain]

new score...

look at the state of that picture... Microsoft need to leave the picture settings alone... dear me...

 

[NSX05]

yeah but the 8100 is the real competition, and that is sitting at $120... it's not going to kill it in cinebench, but with one stick of ram and a 1050ti, it will spank the r3 systems in real world.

i3-8100 == Ryzen 3 1200
i3-8300 == Ryzen 3 1300X

Although they were released after Ryzen. And Cinebench is more real-world than CPU-Z.

Also, enjoy getting a 1050 Ti with current pricing. They're $100+ more expensive than they should be. So you'd be stuck on Intel graphics for a while. Ew.

Edit:
@wally_1973 @purecain; both of your results have been added.

They are some sweet overclocks guys. I was seriously contemplating a 1600X build, but with the way GPU pricing is right now, I think I might settle for a 2400G. That thing is a beast.

 

[phanbuey]

i3-8100 == Ryzen 3 1200
i3-8300 == Ryzen 3 1300X

Although they were released after Ryzen. And Cinebench is more real-world than CPU-Z.

Also, enjoy getting a 1050 Ti with current pricing. They're $100+ more expensive than they should be. So you'd be stuck on Intel graphics for a while. Ew.

Edit:
@wally_1973 @purecain; both of your results have been added.

They are some sweet overclocks guys. I was seriously contemplating a 1600X build, but with the way GPU pricing is right now, I think I might settle for a 2400G. That thing is a beast.

I was talking about trickson specifically, who has one stick of ram and a 1050ti on his ryzen 3 1300x...

 

[NSX05]

I was talking about trickson specifically, who has one stick of ram and a 1050ti on his ryzen 3 1300x...

My bad. I didn't pay attention to his configuration since I was primarily responding to his remarks on the 1300X.

 

[Dia01]

Ouch, something wrong here WTF?

 

[phanbuey]

@Dia01 looks like you might have a turbo-boost/bios glitch... (this is going to sound stupid) but open like 3 chrome browsers to TPU and run it again.... Do something in chrome while its running.

 

[Dia01]

@Dia01 looks like you might have a turbo-boost/bios glitch... (this is going to sound stupid) but open like 3 chrome browsers to TPU and run it again....

I am on a modded BIOS provided by MSI so anything is possible. I'll give it another go when I get home. All cores are boosting to 4.5 though which I have preset in the BIOS?

 

[phanbuey]

I am on a modded BIOS provided by MSI so anything is possible. I'll give it another go when I get home. All cores are boosting to 4.5 though which I have preset in the BIOS?

My initial MSI bios the CPU-Z benchmark didn't pass the "Run this at full tilt" threshold, so you will see your score go up as you open more background apps.

Don't know if its the bios or just windows being its usual flaky self, but it went away after the latest BIOS update... my scores used to be SUPER low (around 4400ish at 4.6), until i opened like 3-4 apps in the background then it would spike up into the 5K's.... It still randomly happens from time to time.

I really think it's the bios but that's pretty much pure speculation.

 

[Dia01]

Re-run again, used new version 1.82 and the older version 1.73 as per OP. Why the difference?

 

[NSX05]

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/dia01-cpuz-1-jpg.97181/
Re-run again, used new version 1.82 and the older version 1.73 as per OP. Why the difference?

The benchmark was altered starting from version 1.80 to standardize the numbers as they were getting a little too much. They also fixed the Ryzen performance as the older benchmark was small enough to fit entirely into the L2 cache, which resulted in higher performance for Ryzen, than expected. The benchmark itself still consists of sequential superscalar SSE2 instructions.

Your results look fine to me.